Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87zmzg0ycq.fsf@stark.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL? ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes: > heh, our apps do tend to be CPU bound. Generally, I think the extra CPU > horsepower is worth the investment until you get to the really high end > cpus. I find that while most applications I work with shouldn't be cpu intensive they do seem end up being cpu bound quite frequently. What happens is that 90% of the workload has a working set that fits in RAM. So the system ends up being bound by the memory bus speed. That appears exactly the same as cpu-bound, though I'm unclear whether increasing the cpu clock will help. It's quite possible to have this situation at the same time as other queries are i/o bound. It's quite common to have 95% of your workload be frequently executed fast queries on commonly accessed data and 5% be bigger data warehouse style queries that need to do large sequential reads. Incidentally, the same was true for Oracle on Solaris. If we found excessive cpu use typically meant some frequently executed query was using a sequential scan on a small table. Small enough to fit in RAM but large enough to consume lots of cycles reading it. -- greg
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: